Deadly Deception: The Tobacco Industry's Secondhand Smoke Cover Up

Share/Save Share this

SmokingMany of the of the tobacco industry's underhanded strategies and tactics have been exposed, thanks to landmark legal cases and the hard work of public health advocates. But we are still uncovering the shocking lengths to which the industry has gone to protect itself from public health measures like smoking bans. Now we can thank the city of Pueblo, Colorado, for an opportunity to look a little bit deeper into how the industry managed the deadly deceptions around secondhand smoke.

A new study, now the ninth of its type and the most comprehensive one yet, has shown a major reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks after a smoke-free law was put into effect.

On July 1, 2003, the relatively isolated city of Pueblo, Colorado enacted an ordinance that prohibited smoking in workplaces and indoor public areas, including bars and restaurants. For the study, researchers reviewed hospital admissions for heart attacks among area residents for one year prior to, and three years after the ban, and compared the data to two other nearby areas that didn't have bans (the part of Pueblo County outside city limits, and El Paso County, which includes Colorado Springs). Researchers found that during the three years after the ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 41 percent inside the city of Pueblo, but found no significant change in admissions for heart attacks in the other two control areas.

Eight studies done prior to this one in other locales used similar techniques and yielded similar results, but covered shorter periods of time -- usually about one year after the smoking ban went into effect. The results of this longer, more comprehensive study support the view that not only does secondhand smoke have a significant short-term impact on heart function, but that lives, and money, are probably being saved by new laws proliferating around the world in recent years that minimize public exposure to secondhand smoke.

Tobacco Smoke and the Heart

Heart structureWhen most people think "cigarette smoke," they immediately think "lung cancer," but far less public attention has been paid to how secondhand smoke effects heart function. In a memo dated 1980 that I first discovered in 1999, a Philip Morris scientist points out that nicotine lowers the heart's threshold to ventricular fibrillation -- an inefficient heart pumping pattern -- which increases people's susceptibility to heart attacks.

A 1991 report sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that secondhand smoke kills approximately 53,000 Americans year, mostly from heart disease. A public health study published in 2001 showed that exposure to secondhand smoke for even short periods of time, as little as 30 minutes, causes changes in platelets and cardiac epithelium. Lung cancer takes many years to develop, but heart function is impacted more rapidly upon exposure to secondhand smoke.

Tobacco Companies Have Long Been Aware of Secondhand Smoke Hazards

Tobacco companies knew much more about the health hazards of secondhand smoke, and knew it longer ago, than most people realize.

Recognizing the need to do more biological research on its own products, but also understanding the need to distance itself from this research for legal reasons, in 1971 Philip Morris purchased a biological lab in Germany called Institut Fur Biologische Forschung ("INBIFO"), or Institute for Biological Research. PM then created a complex routing system to ensure that work done at INBIFO could not be linked back to Philip Morris. INBIFO routed its study results through a PM research and development facility in Switzerland called Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, and documents created at INBIFO were often in French or German language.

Between 1981 and 1989, Philip Morris (PM) conducted at least 115 different inhalation studies on secondhand smoke at INBIFO in which they compared the toxicity of mainstream smoke (the smoke the smoker himself inhales) to that of secondhand smoke. PM discovered that secondhand smoke is 2-6 times more toxic and carcinogenic per gram than mainstream smoke. The company never published the results of these in-house studies or alerted public health authorities to their findings. Rather, they kept this information strictly to themselves -- even most Philip Morris employees were unaware of these studies.

Strategies to Deceive the Public

But Philip Morris did much worse than hide this crucial information from the public. Spurred by a 1993 EPA Risk Assessment that declared secondhand smoke a known human carcinogen, and recognizing the danger the secondhand smoke issue held for the cigarette industry, Philip Morris masterminded a massive global effort to confuse and deceive the public about the health hazards of secondhand smoke and to delay laws restricting smoking in indoor public places.
Smoke chemicals
A 1993 internal Philip Morris (PM) strategy paper titled "ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) World Conference" shows PM organizing a wide range of strategies to shape public views on secondhand smoke and fight smoking restrictions worldwide. PM pursued tactics to "shift concern over ETS to slippery slope argumentation and/or tolerance"; liken secondhand smoke to perceived risks from other items of public concern, such as cellular phones and chlorinated water; "shift concern over ETS in the workplace from the health issue to one of annoyance;" "shift the concern over ETS in restaurants from bans to accommodation where bans are imminent;" "develop an 'ETS Task Force,' with global PM representation to develop strategies to combat smoking restrictions;" "... package comprehensive improvements in ventilation to forestall tobacco specific bans and ... shift the debate from ETS to IAQ [indoor air quality]." Another strategy was the "development of a global coalition against "junk science" to complement a similar coalition PM was already forming in the United States.

At the same time, PM implemented Project Brass, a secret action plan conceived by the Leo Burnett Company, to create a "controversy" over secondhand smoke where there really was none. Project Brass strove to "forestall further public smoking restrictions/bans," "create a decided change in public opinion," and "develop an atmosphere more conducive to smokers" in the general public.

Project Brass was just the tip of the iceberg. The tobacco industry implemented many projects over the decades to shape public perception about secondhand smoke and to delay laws regulating it. Many of these projects are listed under TobaccoWiki's "Projects and Operations" page: Project Mayfly, the INFOTAB ETS Project, PM and British American Tobacco's Latin American ETS Consultants Program, PM's ETS (Environmental tobacco smoke) Media Strategy, Philip Morris' Science Action Plan, and PM's ICD-9 Project to impede the creation of a medical billing code that would indicate illnesses that are attributable to secondhand tobacco smoke exposure.

These are just some of the projects we've learned of by combing through industry documents. Any one of these projects taken individually would be stunning in scope and ambition in its own right, but all of them taken together -- and the as-yet undiscovered efforts -- probably constitute the single most coordinated, widespread, expensive, under-the-radar PR campaign ever waged.

These extensive, expensive and hidden deceptions significantly undermined public understanding of the hazards of secondhand smoke and killed thousands and thousands of non-smokers and smokers alike.

The Final Chapter?

The Pueblo study was only made possible because the people of Pueblo courageously enacted a smoke-free law before the rest of the state did. Pueblo's law predated Colorado's statewide smoking law by three years. This is how it usually happens: a slew of cities and towns enact their own smoking bans until finally a measure is passed at the state level. Attaining smoke-free places has been a true grassroots activity. Once people experience air clean of cigarette smoke in bars, restaurants and other public places, they love it and don't want to go back to allowing smoking. There are many people alive today who could never conceive of encountering cigarette smoke on buses or airplanes, in hospitals, theaters or universities or other places where once smoking was the norm. Once upon a time, most people believed it was impossible to get bars to go smoke-free, but today this commonsense life-saving law that is the norm in many states and countries.

Time and society are marching on, and as more people are protected from secondhand smoke, we are only starting to learn the true scope of its health effects -- from studies like the one done in Pueblo.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The anti anti smoker's confusion

So, WoodstockLibertarian, not just linked to a website that takes money from the tobacco industry, but published on it. What's the matter, couldn't Dr. Arnett find anyplace to publish that doesn't take money from the industry?

But of course, the fact that the site in question takes tobacco money doesn't by itself prove that secondhand smoke is harmful, and I never said it did. I didn't offer it as a syllogism, did I? It is, however, a big "trust but verify" flag. I hope too that Dr. Arnett would understand my seeking out some other pulmonologist should I ever find myself needing one.

A quick Google search on Dr. Arnett revealed two things: 1) There won't be any commies or pinkoes involved in making health care policy if he can help it; 2) His referencing of works by Ayn Rand, Ludwig van Mises et al. in at least one review he wrote suggests he may have a bit of a "fire tamed at man's fingertips" perspective in matters concerning tobacco.

As for "total control over human lives," feel free to breath in as much secondhand and/or firsthand smoke as you like as far as I'm concerned, and Happy Libertarianing.

"The evidence of the BMJ study indicates that 2nd hand smoke CANNOT be shown to have a causal effect on illness."

Are you sure you wouldn't like to soften that to "has not yet been shown"? Otherwise you've claimed to have proven a negative, as has Dr. Arnett in the title, "Evidence Shows that Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger." That was my point.

39 years is long enough...

I'd say that 39 years is long enough of a study, especially in a pool of 118K people, to say "CANNOT".
And remember, all your ANTI smoking stuff shows "increased risk factors". Yet you focus people on the % number, and don't explain it.

If 1 in 100000 people will die of lung cancer, thats a ONE THOUSANDTH of a percent chance.
If you increase the RISK FACTOR by 20%, that does not mean (as the anti's would like you to believe!!) that 20% of people will get lung cancer if they're exposed to 2nd hand smoke.

The likelihood of a non-smoker of getting lung cancer is something on the order of 1.3%. An increase of 1% in the risk factor would not make this number 2.3%, rather it would make it 1.313%......

Glad you want the government to have the power to dictate to you like that. Just wait until they come after something that's important to you!

Gotta admire your tenacity, if nothing else.

"And remember, all your ANTI smoking stuff shows 'increased risk factors'. Yet you focus people on the % number, and don't explain it.

If the "% number" is there, prudence would strongly suggest avoiding the circumstance in question whether or not the precise mechanisms are spelled out. It's not like anyone is claiming an increased risk of something good happening, is it?

"The likelihood of a non-smoker of getting lung cancer is something on the order of 1.3%. An increase of 1% in the risk factor would not make this number 2.3%, rather it would make it 1.313%......"

...Which in your population of 100,000 would still come to 13 more. So which matters more to you, those 13 people or your liberty to spew secondhand smoke? Or for that matter, can you say the original 1.3 percent were never exposed to secondhand smoke? I don't think so.

Another point you haven't mentioned was that the focus of the original post was heart disease, not cancer. (Whoops, sorry, I guess I wasn't supposed to remember that.)

"Just wait until they come after something that's important to you!"

Oh, they already have. For one thing, I can no longer say I'm a citizen of a country that does not torture. What seems important to you, though, is your own liberty to subject others to your secondhand smoke. At least, nothing you've said so far seems to contradict that.

Subverting the math.

No, it does not mean 13 more people will get cancer or some other ailment... You've gone and done what the media complicitly does, and the ANTI's, because it works for them, never bother to correct - even though the ACS and others know the real math...

It means that the risk factor that someone in that pool of 100,000 people has increased by a very tiny amount - .013%

Your probablity of getting some sort of lung or other health ailement is much higher if you wait at a bus stop every day, commute in highway traffic for long hours with the windows open (or in a car without a cabin air filter), work in any sort of manufacturing that includes industrial chemicals.

Why does the government not go after all that? Easy... because they want people herded around on buses, and going after industry would be bad for the economy - though they do take their little nips and cuts there in the cause of "environmentalism". Oh, and the smoking community is a small enough minority...

A lady walked past me in a resteraunt saturday and her perfume was so strong that I sneezed for like 5 minutes. Can I get the government to hold a gun to her head and tell her not to wear that stink in public? After all, it's the same thing you're trying to do to those who choose to smoke... FORCE them.

The only way you can believe this is right is if you believe that you derive your rights FROM the government, and so like your parent they (big-mommy-state) can take them away.

The government derives IT's right and powers from the CONSENT of the governed. There is nothing CONSTITUTIONAL about a government, of any kind, dictating to it's citizens this way. We could devolve this into a complete discussion of all the things the government does that it truly does not have the right or the power to do, but, that's beyond the point.

Let's not forget, a private business does NOT become public property just because the public is invited...

Watch your tongue. You'll be mistaken for one of "them"!

"Your probablity of getting some sort of lung or other health ailement is much higher if you wait at a bus stop every day, commute in highway traffic for long hours with the windows open (or in a car without a cabin air filter), work in any sort of manufacturing that includes industrial chemicals. Why does the government not go after all that? "

What??? Government DOES go after car emissions, has rules against CO(carbon monoxide) leaking into the cabin, as well as limits on industrial chemicals in the natural environment!

And then you make the claim that government doesn't do any of the above because "going after industry would be bad for business". Erhh...uh. You better go back to Cato Inst. website so you can read up on who and what it is your supposed to believe as a 'good' libertarian. Because assuming that government is on the side of industry is what those nasty environmentalist-types believe, not you! No, No! Libertarians believe gub'mint /interferes/ with industry....that it is the natural enemy of free markets.

WoodstockLibertarian

Back to the top for more column width.

Second hand tobacco smoke

I think the furor over second hand tobacco smoke and the so-called statistics are a bunch of made up numbers by people with nothing better to do. What about all the chemicals we breath everyday at home and work. Out-gassing from nylon carpet, which is petroleum based, all the chemicals and pollutants at work places, smog,etc,etc. By the way, if you go to the root cause of the issue you will find that the govt was not doing their job. No regulation of this industry, due to "trade secrets" of the industry.

More problems than second hand smoke

In my opinion this complaining about the tobacco industry lying about second hand smoke is an old, old story. Truthfully, I have known many people who died from lung disease but never smoked nor been around it... That may be because of second hand smoke - but maybe not, since their is so much pollution in the air - who needs second hand smoke to blame !!!

I have known bartenders and cocktail waitresses who never got lung disease, yet people who were never exposed - died of lung disease. Check the records.

Smoking is a nasty habit anyway (IMO) and it can only be a plus to your body to NOT partake in any manner......
But if people like to smell bad and go broke - go ahead and knock yourself out...... Because huge taxes are being planned for cigarretts, and will be implemented soon. Nationally and Statewide......

Another point. Whey do they never refer to taxes on all tobacco products? Like those awful cigars? Why do they always say cigarretts? Is it my immagination that they seem to discriminate?

Second Hand Smoke is Dangerous, But

I believe in the great danger of second hand smoke, but your article fails to say whether the data were normalized for certain factors, such as locations of hospitals, which might tend to skew the data either way, lifestyle, and the aging of the population in the inner city. Heart attacks are caused by too many factors for this study to be useful. The second hand smoke fight is best done based on epidemiological evidence, as it's nearly impossible to refute.

Limitations on Pueblo Study

As with all studies, this one was not without some limitations, but nevertheless it builds on eight similar studies done prior to it that yielded strikingly similar results.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which published information on this study, had this to say regarding its limitations:

"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, because no data were available on whether study subjects were nonsmokers or smokers, determining what portion of the observed decrease in hospitalizations was attributable to reduced SHS [secondhand smoke] exposure among nonsmokers and what portion was attributable to increased quitting among smokers was not possible. The prevalence of smoking decreased in Pueblo County as a whole, but the difference over time was not statistically significant. Second, the study did not directly document reductions in SHS exposure among nonsmokers after the city of Pueblo smoke-free law took effect, although studies elsewhere have reported such reductions (1,5,7,10). Third, individual residences were assigned based on postal codes, which might have resulted in a small amount of misclassification (3); however, misclassifying residents' exposure to the city of Pueblo smoke-free ordinance would result in underestimating the effect of this ordinance. In addition, residents of the area of Pueblo County outside the city of Pueblo limits might work in workplaces or patronize restaurants or bars in the city of Pueblo, or vice versa; again, this would bias findings toward the null. Finally, the ecologic nature of this study precludes definite conclusions about the extent to which the observed decline in AMI hospitalizations in the city of Pueblo was attributable to the smoke-free ordinance. To the extent that any unmeasured factors influenced rates, the findings described in this report might overestimate or underestimate the actual effect. AMI hospitalization rates initially were substantially higher in the city of Pueblo than in the two comparison areas, suggesting that these areas might not be fully comparable to the intervention site because of demographic and other differences. However, no significant changes in the manner in which AMI patients were diagnosed, treated, or transported occurred in the three study sites during the study period. Future studies could further expand the evidence base by including information on the smoking status of AMI patients and biomarkers (e.g., cotinine and troponin) for objective measurement of SHS exposure and case ascertainment, as was done in one recent study (7).

You can access their entire report on the study [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm here].

I hope this helps answer your question.
Anne Landman